After reading about how ESPN is firing millions of dollars in on air talent, and hemorrhaging money all together, I started thinking about how viable the company is for the long term and how it will affect the price of Disney Stock. ESPN is one of Disney's top money makers, and for the last few years has been losing money left and right in overpaying for TV deals, millions of viewers cancelling cable subscriptions, and a lack of innovation as the entertainment market shifts.
And the story here is simple -- ESPN is losing millions of subscribers and viewers that add up to billions of dollars a year in losses and is on the hook for tens of billions of dollars in sports rights costs in the years ahead.
Think about that for a minute. If your business was losing 10,000 customers every single day how panicked would you be? But that's the exact case with ESPN. Every single day the equivalent of a decent sized American town stops paying ESPN for content. This is the continuation of a trend that began in 2011 when ESPN peaked with 101 million cable and satellite subscribers according to Nielsen. Per Nielsen's most recent estimates ESPN now has 87,859,000 cable and satellite subscribers. That's a loss of over 13 million cable and satellite subscribers in the past several years, costing ESPN in the neighborhood of $1.3 billion dollars per year. ($7.30 a month in affiliate fees x 12 months x 13 million households). That's money that will never return and that's money that is incredibly significant when you consider that ESPN is on the hook for $7.3 billion in yearly sports rights fees, the most any company in the world is paying for content.
It is clear that ESPN needs to change its business model. Clay Travis (sports writer) goes on to talk about how politics affect ESPN, however I think the problem is customers are switching away from cable and into newer forms of entertainment like live streaming, Netflix, etc. I believe that if ESPN were to switch over into this new market by having a daily show on Netflix where they have a half hour of sports highlights and brief commentary, they would find some success.
What do you guys think the solution is for ESPN? If ESPN keeps plummeting how far do you see Disney stock falling?
The link to the full article quoted above is found here
Live TV is dying.
first off, love your username
second, my recollection is that most of those ratings services don't capture the online viewers. for example, I use Sling TV, which has ESPN, but I bet I count as a defector, because I cut cable and started streaming.
just a thought
favorite Chappell Show skit of all time haha.
Have not heard of Sling TV, interesting concept though.
Sling is absolutely awesome. 25 bucks with the added sports package for more great sports channels.
ESPN will be just fine, live sports are just about the most sticky thing in this whole "cord-cutting" dynamic. Eventually Watch ESPN will likely just be a stand alone streaming service like HBO Now and people will purchase it, because people watch sports live not on Netflix or some shit.
Keep in mind that a lot of live sports are on CBS, Fox, and other channels that come in the most basic cable programming, while ESPN is not. And also account for what live sports ESPN pays for. They have the college football national championship (ratings down for the last few years however thats due to Alabama- Clemson being so regional) they had the worst NFL playoff game of all time between the Texans and the Raiders this year ( a deal which they lost millions airing as no one tuned in for the game and they pay upfront for the playoff games without knowing who will be in them) and a few other important games. However, ESPN in my opinion is losing to Fox Sports Network. ESPN has gone away from baseball, TNT dominates basketball, and football only gave ESPN one horrible playoff game they lost millions on. I know people still watch ESPN occasionally, however their programming outside of live sports (talk shows, sports center) is way down, and losing money. Bottom line is that ESPN is losing money fast and I think they need to find a solution soon.
They have MNF, that playoff game was their first NFL playoff game ever and there will be more, ESPN has just as many BBall games as TNT, baseball is subordinate to even soccer among the 18-35 crowd (and they still air plenty of baseball games) so I believe their movement away from baseball will pay off in the long-run. College football is just as popular as it ever was and ESPN dominates that market. ESPN is lessening in dominance of other 24/7 sports providers but saying they are losing to FSN is ridiculous. ESPN losing money is more due to the decline in cable rather than any secular problem.
p.s. Almost all of those Sling TV type services offer ESPN as part of the basic package, while FSN and the like are usually part of the upgraded packages those services offer. Watch ESPN is also vastly ahead of what any other 24/7 sports network offers.
No ESPN will not be "just fine" they have fucked themselves when they made the decision to push for higher carriage fees and in exchange gave cable providers and option to carry ESPN. Hubris killed this cat. ESPN has lost over 1.5 million subscribers since they made that deal. That isn't even accounting for how much they over paid for MNF, SNB, and other live sporting events. Their management has been absolutely atrocious in doing forward leaning analysis. I read an analysis of the growth they were expecting and it was something like 3% per year as a base for justification for what they paid the NFL for the rights to MNF.
The key part of your argument is live sports, aside from MNF and SNB they don't carry any live sports that can't be viewed in an alternative manner. Sure they might have different games but unless a specific team is playing you can watch baseball or football somewhere else.
Maybe I am naïve but if any sports network can successfully pivot from cable to streaming I think it's ESPN.
It's not about pivoting from cable to streaming. Their subscriber loss is according to recent estimates at best 10% from cord cutters. The vast majority of their subscriber loss is coming from people who took cheaper packages because of price or they just don't give a fuck about sports. This is all completely ignoring the fact that ESPN is almost a political news opinion network now where sports is just sprinkled in like traffic and weather on the 8s is on radio.
Here is a list of the five most expensive cable channels as of 2013 (prices shown are per subscriber, per month): 1. ESPN: $6.61 2. TNT: $1.65 3. Disney: $1.34 4. NFL Network: $1.31 5. Fox News: $1.12
The beauty of the current cable subscription model is that each user subsidizes channels that they don't use for other users. However, non-ESPN viewers are paying more to subsidize my use of the channel than I am for the channels that they watch and I don't.
Now let's break down some back of envelope economics to show why ESPN might be in trouble. For arguments sake, let's say that there are currently 90mm ESPN users via cable subscription. At $7.30 per month (per another post above), that's $7.9 billion in yearly revenue. We'll also assume that 50% of people use ESPN regularly enough and would either keep their current cable package or subscribe to a standalone ESPN streaming service. Going off of this assumption, of the 45mm who will always want ESPN, let's say half of these people "cut the cord" and subscribe to a streaming option. In order for ESPN to generate the same revenue from those 22.5mm users who want a standalone stream, they would need to charge ~$88 per month. ($1.9 billion / 22.5mm). This also assumes that NONE of the 45mm of non-ESPN viewers choose to downgrade their cable package to an offering that doesn't include ESPN. This also doesn't factor in any of the other ESPN family of channels (ESPN2, ESPNU, etc.)
However, this is only half of the problem. ESPN currently pays $6 billion+ per year for live sports programming ($1.9mm for MNF, $1.5 billion for the NBA, $700 million for the MLB, $608 million for the College Football Playoff and millions more for regular season college football to the major conferences). On top of this, ESPN now pays another $100 million for one wild card playoff game in the worst time slot (Saturday afternoon) which has also been historically the worst game. Estimates show that only about $25mm in ad revenue can typically be generated from a slot like this. This means that ESPN is losing $75mm per year on this contract alone. Add two additional insults to injury, the game is also simulcast on ABC (which doesn't require a cable subscription) and they are locked into this deal through 2021.
Any way you look at it, there is just no way that ESPN can continue to be the cash cow it has been for the past 15-20 years. I think it is a real possibility, that Disney will eventually spin out ESPN into a separate entity as it slowly turns into a cost center for the entire company
I'm not sure if I'm the only 21 year old that can go to Facebook or an app for 5 minutes and get as much information and value as I would get from watching sports center for 30 minutes. My guess is I'm not.
Oh and Facebook and the ESPN app are free, cable is 180 dollars a fucking month.
The delivery-methods of sports content are changing rapidly and the demographic's attention they are hoping to grab is changing as well. Not the greatest combination for ESPN stakeholders.
Oh and not sure if fantasy people remember the huge fantasy app crash during the opening day of football of last season? Not sure if there is a greater symbol for ESPNs failures regarding technology investment. Just about everyone I know said there's no fucking way they are using ESPN fantasy again next year.
While it sucked and is a big blemish for them, I'm most definitely still going to use the ESPN App., it really wasn't as big of a deal as you're making it out to be and I'm sure a lot of people will still continue to use it
The excessive Lebron coverage will do that for ya
Sports are great IMO BC of the idea that theyre not owned. I prefer a sports show or game broadcast which provides highlights and extra commentary or analysis on what occurs between the lines, boards, etc, and maybe a fair generally relatable insight on the human side. The ESPN I came to know and watch was great at that. As a middle man they provided a thorough chunk of not theirs, but the world in sports. You could freely pick and choose what looked good based on the rundown or tune in to a game that they bring to you as a middle man... they don't own the sport
Now it's so chalk full of crap that is force fed to you such as references to what's hot in popular culture, it's utterly brutal to swallow. No thank you, thats not why I had that cord in the first place.
Although, last weekend I had a great view. Granted it was a close game, but Bill Walton color called the Arizona Oregon game. He had to be fact checked on a couple claims, but from watching the game and hearing his analysis, I actually learned a few things and really enjoyed watching a game unfold through his eyes, and also what he saw in each of the players. IMO thats the raw unfatiguable value add that I originally came to know and want from an ESPN product and would underscore. Otherwise it's a sell out.
All is my opinion as a viewer and fan. I don't know how it works behind the scenes such as rights, contracts, etc, but as a consumer of their product for 15 years they became king and then changed their formula.
I stopped watching ESPN when they canceled SVP and Russillo, that was the only thing keeping me watching that trash channel for years. If I want sports highlights now, I'll watch the regional sports network. They're exponentially better and more sports driven than ESPN.
OP are you the Wu from fintwit?
No, however I have submitted posts to him/her/them? via DM that he/she/they? has/have? gone on to post. The inspiration for this name came from twitter, however I love the skit in the Chapelle Show and only followed the twitter account due to me loving the skit. Ironically, it turned out to be the best account I follow. Highly recommend giving the account a follow if anyone out there doesn't already.
ESPN's biggest problem is that it's gone from a great highlight channel to a shitty pop culture channel.
I'm able to get every sports clip, in every angle, in high def within seconds of it happening live now due to the internet.
Their commentary is piss poor, and their attempt to appeal to every demographic is brutal as well. When they attempt to talk about sports news, it ends up being gossipy. The other day I turned it on to find them talking about Colin Kaepernick standing for the pledge next season. Who fucking cares? I promptly turned it back off. Or lest we forget the coverage they were giving Aaron Rodgers' brother some time ago just because he was on the Bachelorette.
They need to move to a better digital format and have clip streaming available within moments to compete. Otherwise they'll wash their user base away at the same rate they're doing so currently.
Over the past five years it's become the TMZ of sports. SC even looks like TMZ since they did the left hand story bar.
In my humble opinion they REALLY need to offer a standalone ESPN channels service like what HBO has done with their HBO GO platform. If someone could pay 10-15 bucks to have espn, espn2, etc. they would do it in a heartbeat. The problem is that all of cable services besides sling require the premium package to get espn included.
Not a viable option. They have lost a over 1.5 million subscribers, of those something like 90% were people who opted for a cheaper plan that didn't have ESPN. It is estimated that of their total subscriber base less than 50% actually watch ESPN.
ESPN is currently trying to pimp the women's basketball tournament and make it look like it's a big deal. No one will watch it and ESPN will be stuck wasting millions to air it to a handful of viewers.
I also don't need to know when Lebron is taking a dump.
College football is the only thing that ESPN does at a high level (and it's only the best/marquee games that get the A teams).
It is mainly becuase of me and Big cat
Sorrey!
whos da bad guy
Seems like everything is losing steam to internet. After reading this, I thought about how I used to watch ESPN highlights on Sunday nights after a day of NFL games. Now I just go to NFL.com and watch the game highlights there, with AdBlock on. Why sit through commercials and other shit I don't want to see for 10 minutes when I can go straight to it?
Only problem with NFL.com is that they have some horrible commentators. Don't get me wrong - LT was a hell of an athlete, but that guy is dumb as rocks and painful to the ears.
Deion and Michael Irvin are awesome but yeah LT needs to go. Willie McGuinness, Rodney Harrison, and Teddy Bruschi are pretty good too.
Fuck Deion and Irvin. ESPN let Colin get away and finally made the move to start getting away from Berman. Now they have this lame SC6 which is numbing after about 2 minutes.
Supposedly Greenberg is getting his own show and Mike and Mike will be no more. Yep, ESPN does not learn from its own mistakes.
ESPN's insta is LIT
The Skip Bayless effect.
ESPN is in massive trouble. Offering stand alone won't come close to covering the revenue lost from people who do not watch sports cutting cable.
I'm very interested to see how this ends up affecting the leagues themselves, salaries have skyrocketed all based on TV money that is going to sink the world wide leader.
I think Clay (who is a pretty funny dude on Twitter) over emphasizes the influence that their "political correctness" and politics play into their falling ratings but it certainly is an element. I remember watching SportsCenter in the morning as kid everyday because it showed sports highlights, had good commentary with funny/memorable anchors, and was absent of any political bias or waste of time pieces. Cant sit through 5 minutes of SportsCenter now without some story on an LGBT athlete or Black Lives Matter highlight.
But the overwhelming majority of the rating fall off has been due to the move away from live TV. People go on twitter, or various sports apps to catch up on news. ESPN will always be around but they're reach is vastly declining. They need to invest heavily into tech, but even then I think the market is crowded.
The problem with ESPN is that it is still catering to the same audience that they first attracted when the network began - BABY BOOMERS.
Why the fuck does any young millennial want to see some old guy wearing a suit and a pocket square make corny jokes and references while going over highlights of a bunch of 23/24 year olds shooting hoops?
There is a strong disconnect between on-air talent and culture relevance which is why they are firing all these old fucks.
The top rated program they have is First Take and its for obvious reason - the drama. Stephen Smith talks so much shit and it gets people talking about at work, social media, etc. That's why they need to bring in young ignorant kids who are somewhat experts in their respective sport (there are tons of these guys on Youtube with HUGE followings because they are entertaining and often enlightening because at the end of the day, they are sport geeks).
Disney should take a look at how CNN is gaining viewership in the young demos. It's not "journalist integrity" or their obvious anti-Trump undertones that gets record ratings; it's the conflict and drama they broadcast by getting a bunch of libs and cons at 8PM and bring up a topic like immigration and let them cock fight for an hour. For some that's fucking fun considering how dry politics can be. Why not apply that to something that is actually fun like sports? And the best thing about it, results are immediate. If Shaq calls out KD and Chuck thinks Shaq is foolish and KD drops 40 and a W, then Shaq looks like an idiot and then we all get to see Chuck flame his ass in the aftergame show. That's the rare ability sports has that other subjects don't. So why not exploit it?
I agree 100%, people can get highlights anywhere. ESPN needs to have more barstool type content. If i was them i would throw bags of money at the pardon my take boys.
I feel like USAToday has been trying to replicate Barstool-type commentary.
Do you watch much sports/have you seen ESPN in the past few years? They're trying to cater to younger viewers and it's failing because it's becoming political and, though this is a little dated, sports fans lean right. They don't want to hear someone devote all of their coverage into why people are kneeling during the National Anthem, they want to watch highlights/catch up on the latest stories in sports.
First Take is entertaining, but it actually typically has some decent insight and Mike & Mike is a genuinely good show that features two true professionals. They've got some genuinely great commentators for NCAA football and the MLB but they get blown away on the NBA vs. TNT and the NFL vs. probably all of Fox, NBC and CBS. ESPN needs to appeal to a younger demographic but they also have to recognize that sports fans want to hear about what's going on in the sports world and off the field/court stuff should be left to big stories like scandals at PSU/Baylor or a brief tidbit about a major player being arrested. If you want to delve into some deeper topics then E:60 and OTL do a good job of that without getting very political. 30 for 30 is also a great avenue for telling the whole story but SJW issues, in general, are the last thing that most people want to see on ESPN.
Picking CNN is not a good example btw, they get smoked by FNC and MSNBC across the board and FNC dominates even the younger demo. Also, I'm going to assume that since you're commenting on this that you know that Shaq and Chuck work together on TNT and that they shit talk each other all the time. They have pretty hefty contracts with TNT and they can do pretty much whatever they want; ESPN is not going to be able to poach them without way overpaying.
If you didn't know that they worked together, and the more I read your comment the less I'm sure you did know that, then you need to stop posting on this thread.
1) CNN owns the young demos. FNC and MSNBC own the older ones not the young ones.
2) The key here is that ESPN should move away from attracting "sports fans" and move towards the average everyday people. Sports is now viewed as an entertainment product and should be treated like such. The leagues (especially the NBA) are adapting to this change, yet ESPN is stuck with 2 guys in a suit talking about nickel defense schemes that no average person can understand nor gives a flying fuck about. That's why they have multiple networks. One is supposed to be for analysis (ESPN) the other (ESPN 2) for entertainment (talk shows, movies, docs). Why do you think they moved First Take from ESPN 2 to ESPN?
2) You're the exact type of person ESPN attracts TODAY which is someone who wants "analysis". They need to start thinking about the future. Average millennials want ENTERTAINMENT. First Take is the most political show on the network yet is is the highest rated. I'm not saying they should go full-on political and talk about sports and politics (although that would be a decent 30 min show). But it is clearly obvious why their "flagship" show Sportscenter is trash. Because its ANALYSIS by a guys in SUITS. It goes against everything that is entertaining about sports. Analysis is great and important but at the end of the day, someone wins and someone loses. And that is more important to the AVERAGE human - how much fun the game vs Chris Paul's +/- on the court. If you want super in-depth analysis there are 100s of people on YouTube that you can (and millions of people) consume for FREE. Sports analysis should be free, but not the entertainment. And ESPN is not competing with FS1 or NBC Sports, they are competing against millennial products like Snapchat and Instagram where young people are continuously conditioned to want ENTERTAINMENT and not analysis.
3)Of course I know Shaq and Chuck are on the same fucking show, otherwise I wouldn't use it as an example. I'm not saying ESPN should poach anybody and certainly not the TNT guys. But TNT's basketball show is the most entertaining sports show right now period. Even athletes from other sports talk about being on Shaqtin-a-Fool. Analysis-wise, their show is absolutely garbage fire. They make fact-less claims based on the number of rings they have. But its sports! It's not politics, or business news, its supposed to be fun. Mike and Mike used to be a really fun show, but its boring as fuck now which is why Greenberg is going to get fired. There is a format the works and doesn't work here. The TNT one is working and the others are not. Most millennials don't know half of the great hall of fame football players that ESPN uses for its games, so why spend boatloads of money on them? Because a few thousand people in the MW went to their alma mater? Fuck outta here. That's non-sense.
ESPN has just gotten to be a network full of terrible content. While about 10 years ago, ESPN was primarily focused on covering all 4 major sports, providing highlights and stories that were about games and teams. The current version of ESPN is something between the TMZ described above and a semi-scripted daytime TV soap. First of all, the main stories that are followed every single day are analyzed, year round and with such granularity, it is beyond ridiculous. For example, every single day they analyze how Durant is fitting in with the Warriors, every single day they analyze how Phil Jackson and Melo hate each-other with the Knicks and of course all of the non-stop Lebron coverage.
Then there are all the dramatic stories that don't really have much to do with sports. For example, deflate-gate. I hate the Patriots, so this is not coming as a biased Patriot fan statement, but barely deflating a football had nothing to do with a professional football team winning or losing anything. The one game where that was complained about, the patriots won by something like 20+ points. That should have been a quick 5 minute story, covered for about a week and even that is overkill. But because its the Patriots, because its Tom Brady/Belichik/Kraft/Goddell, ESPN creates some crazy story around it.
Same thing goes for Tim Tebow, Johnny Manziel, Josh Gordon and whoever else was a mediocre athlete at best on an inconsequential team, got insane amounts of coverage just because there was a dramatic story-line there.
The ESPN of 10 years ago wouldn't give a story the time of day if it didn't include a close race in the standings or had amazing feats of athleticism or team play, now they don't give stories the time of day unless there is some off the field/court/ice dramatic issue.
NFL also gets an obnoxious amount of coverage when it does not matter. How many times do you see Sal Paolantonio reporting from the San Diego Chargers practice facility 3 weeks before the training camp, talking about how he saw a potential backup quarterback stop by in a car with a California license plate followed by analysis of how that means that he bought the car which means he will live in CA and play for the Chargers, or Ed Werder saying that he saw Jerry Jones use a different bathroom than he usually does and analyzing how this could mean that he was in a long meeting about trade X and didn't have time to use his usual facilities and similar crap like that. None of this matters! Actual sports fans don't care, they will get their sports elsewhere.
Baseball coverage in the summer is also non-stop. How can you have a top-10 highlight reel for "sports" when 9 of the plays are guys jumping for balls hit to the warning track, or diving in the infield to stop a ball and throwing a guy out at first or god forbid, A HOMERUN!!! Every baseball highlight (ok 98% of all baseball highlights) is the same dam thing. And don't tell me that game 73/162 between the Minnesota Twins and the Arizona Diamondbacks is worthy of a full 2 minute highlight reel.
Finally, I don't know what Gary Bettman and Co did to piss ESPN off but it must have been bad, like really really bad. I remember the days of NHL Tonight with Melrose and Buccigross, Full games during playoffs and big games during the season being broadcasted. But there was a point around 2007 where it all just abruptly stopped and got replaced with WNBA, Bowling, Nascar, NCAA football games between schools like northeastern Ohio Tech vs. Southern Christian Gulf Coast Floridian School of the Arts and other similar events.
And people wonder why actual sports fans don't pay ESPN any mind anymore. ESPN just isn't catering to the needs of those fans. If I had to opine on who ESPN is appealing to nowadays, it is Joe-Cubicle-Employee who needs to get his top headlines and some spin from an "analyst" so he thinks that he sounds like he knows what he's talking about on his walk to Tokyo Joe's with his colleagues, not true and active sports fans.
There we go. "not true and active sports fans". WAKE UP. Millennials view sports as celebritydom not something of substance. They see 20 year olds making $100MM and flexing in the club on Snapchat. It's all about entertainment. And from a business standpoint, if a majority of your customers are Joe-Cubicle-Employee and you are not pouring all your resources into it, then you deserve to die. Plain and simple. Keep catering to whatever a "real sports fan" is and you'll soon find out they they are getting the same if not better analysis for free on Youtube.
This is exactly right. If ESPN dies, I don't care. Something else will come along, but I can guarantee that with all the advancements in technology, my ability to view live sports will not be diminished, no matter the broadcasting source. Be it ESPN, FSN, Facebook, Snapchat, Sling, or whatever, our options as consumers have never been better for actual viewing of live sports contests.
If you boil down the essence of real sports fans to those who care for nothing but actual gameplay, then the environment has never been better to watch your favorite teams in almost any sport. There are so many options now that it is almost too easy to pick anything a la carte. As for all the filler crap and "analysis" that goes on in the daytime, I have no idea who watches it.
I think that as sports continue to become more regional (e.g. baseball, college football), the national coverage will diminish, but it won't actually hurt the popularity of any one sport. If anything, sports are more popular than ever, it's just that the options to follow your favorite teams have exponentially increased. This has diminished the power/popularity of national brands like the Lakers, Yankees, Cowboys, etc. Now that coverage doesn't have to be national because you can see your local teams anytime, you no longer have to have these national brands for a sport to be relevant to you.
Nihil expedita veritatis omnis quibusdam et aperiam. Maxime eveniet soluta deserunt. Veritatis quae dolores et labore iste. Ut quo a pariatur veniam voluptas ratione cum. Culpa ut sed voluptatem omnis quia. Non perspiciatis et dolor ex nisi dolore ad est.
Et sit dolorum ratione et repudiandae. Alias ut veniam autem. Vel in ipsa assumenda commodi quisquam. Qui vel ut nemo quam nulla aut voluptate.
Nihil ipsam earum maxime sit reprehenderit. Quod tenetur alias assumenda dolorem. Omnis tempora consequatur et non modi et. Est nesciunt distinctio repudiandae doloremque sunt. Exercitationem ab iure numquam voluptatibus aut.
Dignissimos est fugiat at. Quae occaecati dolorum similique omnis iusto dolores debitis. Unde sit qui dolorem nam qui tenetur. Ea nihil commodi voluptatum facere.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Officiis illo est ut molestias quia ipsa ea. A nesciunt consectetur id consequatur molestias eum. Iste animi sit ullam quisquam dignissimos aperiam. Occaecati illum omnis voluptas aspernatur. Voluptates quia amet ipsum ullam ut aliquid. Dolorum sed quae quis dolor assumenda deleniti perspiciatis.
Tempore vel atque aut dolorum autem dolores ea. Optio placeat sed nesciunt id repellendus. Deserunt rerum voluptas earum repellat voluptas similique earum.
Cumque doloribus earum dolor voluptatem quae quaerat. Omnis amet cum et velit rem dolores iure. Quia eveniet nostrum aliquid omnis ut officia et nostrum.
Ut dolore error beatae impedit ducimus voluptatem dolorum. Sit mollitia cupiditate placeat ipsum sed reprehenderit. Et rerum nesciunt aliquid. Cumque rem non non ipsam quia sint et. Ab saepe quo sit natus qui fuga minima. Similique quia cumque ipsam consectetur similique odit.